Wounded vet not a "True Hero"

[daveman]

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court—martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

So....it comes back to, why wasn't he court martialed? Nixon would have LOVED shutting him up...and for you to state that the Watergate President was worried about this one guy being "politically disastrous" is quite laughable....incredibly laughable.

I don't know why he wasn't charged with treason.

Because he sure did commit it.

 

[daveman]

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

Is this the enemies that our own government negotiated with?

You do know the difference between a government with authority to negotiate and a private citizen with no such authority, right?

Right?

 

[theHawk]

Rep. Walsh says Duckworth isn't a 'true' hero

Doesn't get any better for Republicans....Attacking a veteran who lost both legs in an attack. Not a "true hero". Is it because she is a woman or a Democrat?

Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, considered one of the most vulnerable freshmen in Congress, is seen on a video criticizing Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth for talking too much about her military service.

"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about," Walsh, R-Ill., can be heard saying about Duckworth.


The video was posted on ThinkProgress, a blog that's an outlet of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Duckworth, a former Obama appointee, lost both her legs and partial use of her right arm when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting in Iraq. She told USA TODAY in a 2005 interview that she wanted to fly Army helicopters because "I wanted to take the same risks as the guys."

From your own link:

"Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero," Walsh said

Her service demands our thanks and our respect but not our vote," Walsh said, charging Duckworth with not speaking out on issues such as debt and health care.


Sounds like more phoney outrage from the left. You people have pissed on the honor and respect of the military for decades and now you pretend your offended by a Repub who wants to talk about the issues instead of talking about military service.

Carry on dipshits....

 

[rightwinger]

Rep. Walsh says Duckworth isn't a 'true' hero

Doesn't get any better for Republicans....Attacking a veteran who lost both legs in an attack. Not a "true hero". Is it because she is a woman or a Democrat?

Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, considered one of the most vulnerable freshmen in Congress, is seen on a video criticizing Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth for talking too much about her military service.

"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about," Walsh, R-Ill., can be heard saying about Duckworth.


The video was posted on ThinkProgress, a blog that's an outlet of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Duckworth, a former Obama appointee, lost both her legs and partial use of her right arm when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting in Iraq. She told USA TODAY in a 2005 interview that she wanted to fly Army helicopters because "I wanted to take the same risks as the guys."

From your own link:

"Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero," Walsh said

Her service demands our thanks and our respect but not our vote," Walsh said, charging Duckworth with not speaking out on issues such as debt and health care.


Sounds like more phoney outrage from the left. You people have pissed on the honor and respect of the military for decades and now you pretend your offended by a Repub who wants to talk about the issues instead of talking about military service.

Carry on dipshits....

Keep trying to dig out of that hole...we know Walsh sure is

If Walsh wanted to point out that Duckworth was not talking about the issues, he could have said just that

What he DID say was that she was not a REAL hero because she brings up her military service

The fact that Walsh is trying to cover his ass by rescoping what he said has no bearing

 

[Synthaholic]

Wow. You're stupid.

May I present again your argument:I don't see anything in there that counters my claim that Kerry violated the law and the UCMJ.

You really can't make an argument without making shit up, can you?

Pathetic.

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

Bullshit. But keep pulling definitions out of your ass. It's amusing.

 

[Synthaholic]

He was active duty when he went to Paris?

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

Yeah - why don't Republican presidents uphold the law???!!!????

 

[Synthaholic]

He was in the Naval Reserves, still subject to the UCMJ.

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court—martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

Oh, it was LUCK!!!

Why do Republican presidents put politics ahead of their duty to uphold the Constitution?

 

[Synthaholic]

He did what was best for his country unlike conservatives who insisted on throwing more and more soldiers into the meat grinder.....just so we could "beat the commies"

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

braveman doesn't care about the death of American military members in a conflict that he was too young to be involved in.

In fact, he only cares about military deaths when a Democrat is president.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rep. Walsh says Duckworth isn't a 'true' hero

Doesn't get any better for Republicans....Attacking a veteran who lost both legs in an attack. Not a "true hero". Is it because she is a woman or a Democrat?

Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, considered one of the most vulnerable freshmen in Congress, is seen on a video criticizing Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth for talking too much about her military service.

"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about," Walsh, R-Ill., can be heard saying about Duckworth.


The video was posted on ThinkProgress, a blog that's an outlet of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Duckworth, a former Obama appointee, lost both her legs and partial use of her right arm when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting in Iraq. She told USA TODAY in a 2005 interview that she wanted to fly Army helicopters because "I wanted to take the same risks as the guys."

From your own link:

"Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero," Walsh said

Her service demands our thanks and our respect but not our vote," Walsh said, charging Duckworth with not speaking out on issues such as debt and health care.


Sounds like more phoney outrage from the left. You people have pissed on the honor and respect of the military for decades and now you pretend your offended by a Repub who wants to talk about the issues instead of talking about military service.

Carry on dipshits....

You're citing Walsh's contention as your proof???

Question: how big of a fucking idiot are you?



Tammy Duckworth on her opponent Joe Walsh: "He's the one who's been bringing up the military service"



Tonight, "Piers Morgan Tonight" welcomed Lt. Col.Tammy Duckworth for a candid interview on fighting for her country, politics in America and her race for Congress. Duckworth is running in Illinois for the eighth Congressional District seat against opponent Rep. Joe Walsh. Last week Walsh said Duckworth should stop talking about her service on the campaign trail.


"I dont mind if he attacks me personally," said Duckworth. "But when he says a veteran is not a true hero if they speak about their military service he's now discouraging 23 million veterans across this great nation from speaking about their service at a time when young vets coming home need to be talking about the leadership skills they developed in the military."


Duckworth also noted that she has already been "fighting him [Walsh] on the issue" and that Walsh has been the one "bringing up the military service."


"He's the one that challenged me, you know, invited me to a town hall meeting during a weekend when I actually have National Guard duty. So, I've been talking about the issues."

Watch the clip and listen to the interview, as Duckworth explains who is really talking about the issues.

 

[bodecea]

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?

Actually, not anywhere NEAR as many would have died if we had BUTTED OUT.

 

[rightwinger]

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?

Of course you have a point Dave....

If we only threw another hundred thousand boys into the fire, if only we had stayed another year, victory was just around the corner.....we could have beaten those commies

We used that exact same strategy for six years. Sacrificing more and more boys......just to beat the commies

What happened when the commies won? What happened to the dreaded domino theory? We now buy our clothes from VietNam and China. Is that what those boys died for?

 

[daveman]

Wow.

You're so busy trying to display what a total asshole you are to everyone, you don't even bother reading the replies to your flailing nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/232431-wounded-vet-not-a-true-hero-11.html#post5599224

My apologies -- I missed that post.

Nevertheless, you fail. "Private correspondence" means the opposite of "official correspondence". And since Kerry was not acting officially, he was acting privately.

So he broke the law.

Re: your laughable attempt to prove Kerry did not violate the UCMJ, there is nothing in that article requiring a declaration of war.

So he violated the UCMJ.

You know, it really is okay if you admit liberals break the law. You won't burst into flames.

Bullshit. But keep pulling definitions out of your ass. It's amusing.

I see petulant foot-stamping...but I don't see a reasonable refutation.

 

[daveman]

Then why wasn't he charged? Or is it that he wasn't on Active Duty at the time....If you are a Reservist and it is not your drill weekend or two weeks active duty, are you still subject to the UCMJ?

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court—martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

Oh, it was LUCK!!!

Why do Republican presidents put politics ahead of their duty to uphold the Constitution?

Given the number of leftists involved in treason during the Vietnam War, the courts would be tied up for decades.

 

[daveman]

Your sympathy for this nation's enemies is noted.

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

braveman doesn't care about the death of American military members in a conflict that he was too young to be involved in.

In fact, he only cares about military deaths when a Democrat is president.

You lie.

A LOT.

But then, you're a leftist.

Meanwhile, you project your own hatred of the military on others. Did you know more troops have died in Afghanistan under Obama's command than under Bush's? True story -- yet not a word of concern from you.

Let me guess -- you think they should feel honored to have died under The One. And that troops killed under Bush are MORE DEAD than troops killed under Obama.

 

[daveman]

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?

Actually, not anywhere NEAR as many would have died if we had BUTTED OUT.

It's your belief in the innate goodness of Communists that makes you say that.

Reality, however, says you're full of shit.

 

[daveman]

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?

Of course you have a point Dave....

If we only threw another hundred thousand boys into the fire, if only we had stayed another year, victory was just around the corner.....we could have beaten those commies

We used that exact same strategy for six years. Sacrificing more and more boys......just to beat the commies

What happened when the commies won? What happened to the dreaded domino theory? We now buy our clothes from VietNam and China. Is that what those boys died for?

If Washington had stuck to strategic decisions instead of getting down to the tactical level and making targeting decisions, the war would have been over quickly and Vietnam would have been liberated.

 

[bodecea]

We had a chance at encouraging a free nation to develop.

But the left couldn't have that. They supporting the Communists, directly and indirectly.

The war protesters were working for our enemy.

And thanks to their work, millions of people died.

Overall, the best estimate of those killed after the Vietnam War by the victorious communists in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is 2,270,000. Now totaling almost twice as many as died in the Vietnam War, this communist killing still continues.​

WAR VERSUS GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Are you proud of yourself?

Of course you have a point Dave....

If we only threw another hundred thousand boys into the fire, if only we had stayed another year, victory was just around the corner.....we could have beaten those commies

We used that exact same strategy for six years. Sacrificing more and more boys......just to beat the commies

What happened when the commies won? What happened to the dreaded domino theory? We now buy our clothes from VietNam and China. Is that what those boys died for?

If Washington had stuck to strategic decisions instead of getting down to the tactical level and making targeting decisions, the war would have been over quickly and Vietnam would have been liberated.

"Liberated"? It was a civil war.

 

[Synthaholic]

From the link that you obviously didn't read:

In the UCMJ, Article 104 has this under "Explanation" section:

Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court—martial or by military commission.
This seems to imply that in the case of Article 104, Aiding the enemy, individuals become subject to the provisions of the UCMJ whether or not they are subject to military law as it states above in (1).
Why would this be? Well think about it. If citizen "X" all of a sudden starts communicating or giving aid or information to sworn enemies, he then has entered the realm of military affairs and has made himself subject to certain governing rules. In effect, he has stopped being solely an observing civilian and crosses the line to that of a "militant". He could of course be charged with espionage or even treason under civilian statutes. However the UCMJ was designed to be robust, flexible and enforceable in any theater of the world.
Therefore if an American is caught in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, trial by UCMJ military commission (tribunal) would be an option. And Article 104 powers that option.
Certainly in Kerry's case, the UCMJ would have been very appropriate to use considering he did his communicating with the enemy as a ready reservist, fully commissioned naval officer. And he is lucky he did not get charged. The FBI was certainly monitoring his many VVAW activities. The reason he probably wasn't charged is insufficient hard evidence but more likely the reason was political. It would have politically disastrous for the Nixon administration.​

Oh, it was LUCK!!!

Why do Republican presidents put politics ahead of their duty to uphold the Constitution?

Given the number of leftists involved in treason during the Vietnam War, the courts would be tied up for decades.

Is that your lame answer?

 

[Synthaholic]

We lost over 60,000 American boys.....what did we get for it?

braveman doesn't care about the death of American military members in a conflict that he was too young to be involved in.

In fact, he only cares about military deaths when a Democrat is president.

You lie.

A LOT.

But then, you're a leftist.

Meanwhile, you project your own hatred of the military on others. Did you know more troops have died in Afghanistan under Obama's command than under Bush's? True story -- yet not a word of concern from you.

Let me guess -- you think they should feel honored to have died under The One. And that troops killed under Bush are MORE DEAD than troops killed under Obama.

That's because Obama has treated Afghanistan as a war to be won and engaged, rather than as an excuse to get rid of the guy who tried to hurt his daddy.

Heep flailing and failing, you whiny fucking pussy! It's hilarious!

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course you have a point Dave....

If we only threw another hundred thousand boys into the fire, if only we had stayed another year, victory was just around the corner.....we could have beaten those commies

We used that exact same strategy for six years. Sacrificing more and more boys......just to beat the commies

What happened when the commies won? What happened to the dreaded domino theory? We now buy our clothes from VietNam and China. Is that what those boys died for?

If Washington had stuck to strategic decisions instead of getting down to the tactical level and making targeting decisions, the war would have been over quickly and Vietnam would have been liberated.

"Liberated"? It was a civil war.

He's confused.